Re: Oracle Performance on HP vs Sun ?

From: Todd Thiemann <tthieman_at_cup.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 04:23:36 GMT
Message-ID: <CMHG7D.Fyn_at_cup.hp.com>

James Forgy (forgy_at_ll.mit.edu) wrote: : In article <CM08JA.BAo_at_ses11.shpk.ses.com> brada_at_ses21.sesinc.com (Brad Albom) writes:
: >From: brada_at_ses21.sesinc.com (Brad Albom)

: My intuitive exerience with the HP vs. Sun Oracle debate would be that HP : kicks the Sun Machines Butt!!!

I don't think HP has provided any TPC-A benchmarks on the E35, but we did do a TPC-C when we introduced the E-class systems. The E-35 provided 401 tpmC ($1,895/tpmC).

I don't know that comparing the E35 to the SPARCserver 10:51 is the best comparison though. The E35 costs about US$12,000 at list, while the SPARCserver 10:51 runs around $20,000!! And remember that the E35 can include an internal backup device for enhanced reliability - the SS10:51 requires another box to house the tape backup.

Regards,

Todd Received on Fri Mar 11 1994 - 05:23:36 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Paul Healey: "Re: ODBC Drivers For Oracle7"
Previous message: Seth Grimes: "Re: Oracle on NT"
Maybe in reply to: Brad Albom: "Oracle Performance on HP vs Sun ?"
Next in thread: Tim Read - Sun Linlithgow Snr SE and DB Amb.: "Re: Oracle Performance on HP vs Sun ?"
Reply: Tim Read - Sun Linlithgow Snr SE and DB Amb.: "Re: Oracle Performance on HP vs Sun ?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message